Re: real Iris furcata

---

Bill; when working on the SIGNA checklist I was not in charge of the committee. I kept putting in input but there were multiple people reviewing my work. Many disdained my references because they did not have access to these themselves.  I had the MO botaniacl garden Library at my disposal. Sometimes committees force information to be presented as its lowest common denominator so to speak. as a result most of the original references were deleted. Information that I presented was often suspect, in the sense that who was I to interject this information. Even though at times I felt I had a better scientific background than anyone on the committee, this was not appreciated.  I wound up eliminating much information that I would have liked to have kept. Unfortunately i can no longer remember all the sources. I believe the statement better shape came from Rodionenko. Since its publication and acceptance, I now have more authority to work on the checklist. I have tried to improve incrementally Part 2 (the contribution I worked on). As I have said many times my original concept of a checklist was very different from what is the end result.

oneofcultivars@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 4/29/2004 2:50:50 PM Central Daylight Time, rpries@sbcglobal.net writes:

I also checked out my entry for furcata in the cultivar section of the SIGNA checklist and it says distinguished by stems branching above the middle with smaller deeper flowers of better shape than aphylla.

I have no knowlege of iris furcata but your post prompts a question. What does "better shape" mean?

Smiles,
Bill Burleson